Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Incompetence of OP aside, but can a frigate sink another frigate with leaks caused by one broadside? Legit question as I didnt used that mechanic in ages. The last thing I remember was that you needed a lot more leaks than possible to get from frigate number of cannons (counting in misses, non penetration shots). Seems to me that leaks mechanic is more potent in case of ships with greater number of cannons than smaller ones (also pretty easy to do with NA cannons accuracy - more than mast sniping at least).

Either make leaks more potent in case of small ships ( like you need relatively smaller number of leaks to sink smaller ship than bigger one) or give bigger ships better protection from them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Behavior of cannon balls penetrating water: I'm not sure what ballistics data exists regarding the water penetration ability of round cannon balls.

I do however recall perhaps a Myth Busters episode where they disputed the movie Saving Private Ryan where GIs were being killed underwater on the Omaha Beach landings with bullets traveling through the water seemingly unhindered.

The outcome of the experiment was that even a pointed spinning bullet at high velocity lost impact velocity incredibly quickly and would under virtually no circumstances could have done what was shown in the movie.

It would be interesting to know what a solid round ball would do in the same experiment. Penetrations "betwixt (vis. between) wind and water" are well documented which is virtually on the waterline.

The extent to which a cannonball can penetrate significantly below the waterline is questionable. Reliable data in this regard would be appreciated. This perhaps explains why sinking as a result of holing did not occur except in very rare instances and then only after significant sustained bombardment.

Edit: Furthermore experiments using a replica Vasa 24 pounder gun showed a rather small hole in the side of a mock-up ship section. At the waterline water inflow would also be relatively low compare to deeper in the water due to water pressure.

And the reluctance to destroy an enemy ship is not valid considering the use of fire ships.

Edited by Sir William Hargood
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

In real life a 1st rate would sink from 30+ leaks, but in real life 1st rates never got so many leaks because they would go battle sails, thank you :) 

Sometimes ships of the line sank even with zero leaks with no sails

One example is Royal George sinking fast because of gun placement. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Royal_George_(1756)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Borch said:

but can a frigate sink another frigate with leaks caused by one broadside? Legit question as I didnt used that mechanic in ages. The last thing I remember was that you needed a lot more leaks than possible to get from frigate number of cannons (counting in misses, non penetration shots). Seems to me that leaks mechanic is more potent in case of ships with greater number of cannons than smaller ones (also pretty easy to do with NA cannons accuracy - more than mast sniping at least).

Either make leaks more potent in case of small ships ( like you need relatively smaller number of leaks to sink smaller ship than bigger one) or give bigger ships better protection from them? 

I think this effect is caused by the caliber size and pure math. 

Cutter and 1st rate

  • Diameter of the ball difference is just 2x between 4lb and 42lb
  • But the number of guns difference is almost 9x (6 guns vs 52 guns)

Thus - if you use realistic math and water intake based on diameter - ships with more guns get more risk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that santisima should actually have been shot to splinters  if every ships fired his rounds (and really attacked it)

so yeah i can see the the wonder of rng , and blind believe in miracles

i also see people who are so rude that they have a opinion about a captain who detect a strange behaviour 

if this continuous this game is going nowhere...

 

if this is done all about for streaming, well than everybody is a actor..... for what actually...or who,...

i still don't see a flag ...of the truth ...

its all about balance ..even for a ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sail upwind, enemy ships have to come at you with their hulls raised, fire below waterline while exposed, possibly stack pen mods, profit.

This is used over and over, it works on new players mostly leading to lopsided victories like the one above, right? It really isn't skill, it's just knowing more about the game than the other guy. As far as your counter strike comparison - it doesn't take many hours of collecting crap to replace your loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, admin said:

Sometimes ships of the line sank even with zero leaks with no sails.

One example is Royal George sinking fast because of gun placement.

The sinking of the Royal George was entirely avoidable. The Officer of the watch was clearly guilty of gross dereliction of duty for ignoring the repeated appeals by his Non-Commissioned Officers. Sadly he was never found guilty as he should have done.  The Dogma of the age prevailed.

Edit: I suggest accidental sinking or other than by gunfire don't really count.

Edited by Sir William Hargood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin I do respect your point of view, like CS headshot, other games, trial and error etc.

But if a captain has Rear Admiral rank, he should have been trained accordingly and has lots of experience,

So my point is players get to Rear Admiral too quick, so there are lots of Rear Admirals who does not know about headshot, or how to prevent it.

Pvp screen shots of some great battles prove my point. As one 1st rate dominating 6-7 other ships including 1st rates :). Far worse I have seen Rear Admirals who can not manual sail a 1st rate, of course they would not manual sail any ship. This is a problem.

It should be much harder to reach Rear Admiral rank, thus you need know 6th rate, than you need to know 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and you can command a 1st rate. That is my point of view, but I do respect all other views.

We craft ships for our clan members, they very normally ask us to craft 1st rates for them when they can undercrew it. I sometimes try to explain, but still we build them the 1st rate which should be a sunken ship for a short notice of time :) The people just do not understand, in reality you should be qualified to command such a ship even in this game, I would like them sinking Bellonas, Bucs, earning lots of real experience before sinking a 1st without understanding and learning anything.

Edited by AeRoTR
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, admin said:

I think this effect is caused by the caliber size and pure math. 

Cutter and 1st rate

  • Diameter of the ball difference is just 2x between 4lb and 42lb
  • But the number of guns difference is almost 9x (6 guns vs 52 guns)

Thus - if you use realistic math and water intake based on diameter - ships with more guns get more risk

Its not only about ships with more guns getting more risk but also about having bigger chance to succesfully use leaks mechanic. More cannons equals more chance to cause leaks with one broadside. That mechanic will work against every ship. Question is if it should be more even between ship sizes? Game against realism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:

But if a captain has Rear Admiral rank, he should have been trained accordingly and has lots of experience,

I get that. What about previous forum postings regarding de-powering to reduce leaks? Why did the mechanic and solution change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Thonys said:

 

so yeah i can see the the wonder of rng , and blind believe in miracles

There is no RNG in penetrating leaks.
If you hit the target below the theoretical waterline* you get the hole equal to the size of the ball. This hole starts taking water if it is under water (turning red). 

* waterline in game = line where water touches the hull in stable unheeled position in 100% calm sea conditions.

Calculating time to sink is a simplest secondary school math task.
Assuming all balls are 42lb size (16 cm diameter).
You have a swimming pool with the following dimensions: length 65; width 15,  7 depth. 

  • You have 33 16 cm diameter tubes pouring X liters of water into the pool = X
  • You have 3 pumps pouring Y liters of water out of the pool = Y


Y depends on crew on survival, the less crew you have the less Y you pump 
Y is affected by crew because it takes time to transfer crew (limited by stairs) into pumping and damage control.

If X is a lot higher than Y you will sink very fast. 
There is also a snowball effect because waterline will shift (ship center of mass getting lower and lower), this will make newly created holes which were just safe 30 seconds ago go under water and increase water intake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sir William Hargood said:

I get that. What about previous forum postings regarding de-powering to reduce leaks? Why did the mechanic and solution change?

Look if leaks are in your leaning side, if you depower so you reduce your ships bank to that side. So leaks stay above water, at least some of them.

But if your leaks are opposite side, if you depower, you decrease leaning, and the leaks get into water thus speeding your sinking rate.

I do not know how it happened but you depower, you manual sail or change direction so as to change wind blowing side etc, depending on your actual need.

***Edit: I love most of the game mechanics including leaking, would love to see more, use of battle sails, or full sails increasing fire rate, improved grappling/boarding etc.

Edited by AeRoTR
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AeRoTR said:

@admin I do respect your point of view, like CS headshot, other games, trial and error etc.

But if a captain has Rear Admiral rank, he should have been trained accordingly and has lots of experience,

So my point is players get to Rear Admiral too quick, so there are lots of Rear Admirals who does not know about headshot, or how to prevent it.

Pvp screen shots of some great battles prove my point. As one 1st rate dominating 6-7 other ships including 1st rates :). Far worse I have seen Rear Admirals who can not manual sail a 1st rate, of course they would not manual sail any ship. This is a problem.

It should be much harder to reach Rear Admiral rank, thus you need know 6th rate, than you need to know 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and you can command a 1st rate. That is my point of view, but I do respect all other respects.

We craft ships for our clan members, they very normally ask us to craft 1st rates for them when they can undercrew it. I sometimes try to explain, but still we build them the 1st rate which should be a sunken ship for a short notice of time :) The people just do not understand, in reality you should be qualified to command such a ship even in this game, I would like them sinking Bellonas, Bucs, earning lots of real experience before sinking a 1st without understanding and learning anything.

i agree on this one

also i know captains, with no building capacity ,who sail ships they should have no knowledge about...

building ships and training skill let you win a battle.. not the possession of it..

we had the skill ranks (to follow) of a ship but we threw it overboard... ( that was a mistake for the game now it was a good opportunity to bring balance under captains)

we need that back .

(you need to rank the ship>>  to sail a other bigger ship )[perhaps not premiums]

also building your own ship should be come in place>  if you want to have the full capacity of the ship unlocked

also, at this moment it is to easy to have a ship that is OP on the battlefield, the counterpart of this is the game who let you have the special perks to players who are lucky from the beginning (boarding perks ,  like art of ship handling, and for those who have all the books in the perk knowledge  finally ,but can not make the assembled book..

remember the greatest captain is not the captain you see a lot in battle,... but when he is in a fight, you wanted to have a beer in the tavern anytime ..

and yes i am a noob not qualified to do battle :)), but that's how i think about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:

Look if leaks are in your leaning side, if you depower so you reduce your ships bank to that side. So leaks stay above water, at least some of them.

But if your leaks are opposite side, if you depower, you decrease leaning, and the leaks get into water thus speeding your sinking rate.

I do not know how it happened but you depower, you manual sail or change direction so as to change wind blowing side etc, depending on your actual need.

Thanks! Got it! So obviously only half was explained in previous postings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, admin said:

There is no RNG in penetrating leaks.
If you hit the target below the theoretical waterline* you get the hole equal to the size of the ball. This hole starts taking water if it is under water (turning red). 

* waterline in game = line where water touches the hull in stable unheeled position in 100% calm sea conditions.

Calculating time to sink is a simplest secondary school math task.
Assuming all balls are 42lb size (16 cm diameter).
You have a swimming pool with the following dimensions: length 65; width 15,  7 depth. 

  • You have 33 16 cm diameter tubes pouring X liters of water into the pool = X
  • You have 3 pumps pouring Y liters of water out of the pool = Y


Y depends on crew on survival, the less crew you have the less Y you pump 
Y is affected by crew because it takes time to transfer crew (limited by stairs) into pumping and damage control.

If X is a lot higher than Y you will sink very fast. 
There is also a snowball effect because waterline will shift (ship center of mass getting lower and lower), this will make newly created holes which were just safe 30 seconds ago go under water and increase water intake. 

yes i agree on this one ..it has not RNG in it

its math

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Thonys said:

so yeah i can see the the wonder of rng , and blind believe in miracles

 

3 minutes ago, Thonys said:

yes i agree on this one ..it has not RNG in it

I dont get it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, admin said:

 

I dont get it. 

haha yes misleading is it ..(i love it you have humor as well)

but i was more referring to this :that santisima should actually have been shot to splinters  if every ships fired his rounds (and really attacked it)""

* under the waterline makes perfectly sense

 

*  also the kinetic energy from a ball in the game has to much power for the fast distance in the bigger caliber range..perhaps we can reduce it  a bit .

* also angel it to sharp... we need( more 90 degrees impact  for a direct hit ) we need more bounce in the balls vs hull angle to make a hit 

(AI ships who shoot at 30 degrees and even make hits at the other side of the hull, is a bit almost unbelievable  (( that is what i call RNG))  )

 

 

Edited by Thonys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sir William Hargood said:

Behavior of cannon balls penetrating water: I'm not sure what ballistics data exists regarding the water penetration ability of round cannon balls.

I do however recall perhaps a Myth Busters episode where they disputed the movie Saving Private Ryan where GIs were being killed underwater on the Omaha Beach landings with bullets traveling through the water seemingly unhindered.

The outcome of the experiment was that even a pointed spinning bullet at high velocity lost impact velocity incredibly quickly and would under virtually no circumstances could have done what was shown in the movie.

It would be interesting to know what a solid round ball would do in the same experiment. Penetrations "betwixt (vis. between) wind and water" are well documented which is virtually on the waterline.

The extent to which a cannonball can penetrate significantly below the waterline is questionable. Reliable data in this regard would be appreciated. This perhaps explains why sinking as a result of holing did not occur except in very rare instances and then only after significant sustained bombardment.

Edit: Furthermore experiments using a replica Vasa 24 pounder gun showed a rather small hole in the side of a mock-up ship section. At the waterline water inflow would also be relatively low compare to deeper in the water due to water pressure.

And the reluctance to destroy an enemy ship is not valid considering the use of fire ships.

You're making a minor mistake here.  No one is talking about canon balls going under the water.  "Twixt wind and water" simply means the hull from the upper deck to the level of the water.  Getting hit below the water line is discussed when you heel and your hull is more exposed.  These penetrations become dangerous when the holes are consequently submerged.  Theres a funny story in one of the naval adventures (either A. Kent or D. Lambden) where one hit below the water line sunk a ship.  This is because it's cargo was rice.  The water slowly soaked all the rice which of course swelled up.  This caused the ship to split it's seams and sink.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sir William Hargood said:

Behavior of cannon balls penetrating water: I'm not sure what ballistics data exists regarding the water penetration ability of round cannon balls.

I do however recall perhaps a Myth Busters episode where they disputed the movie Saving Private Ryan where GIs were being killed underwater on the Omaha Beach landings with bullets traveling through the water seemingly unhindered.

The outcome of the experiment was that even a pointed spinning bullet at high velocity lost impact velocity incredibly quickly and would under virtually no circumstances could have done what was shown in the movie.

It would be interesting to know what a solid round ball would do in the same experiment. Penetrations "betwixt (vis. between) wind and water" are well documented which is virtually on the waterline.

The extent to which a cannonball can penetrate significantly below the waterline is questionable. Reliable data in this regard would be appreciated. This perhaps explains why sinking as a result of holing did not occur except in very rare instances and then only after significant sustained bombardment.

Edit: Furthermore experiments using a replica Vasa 24 pounder gun showed a rather small hole in the side of a mock-up ship section. At the waterline water inflow would also be relatively low compare to deeper in the water due to water pressure.

And the reluctance to destroy an enemy ship is not valid considering the use of fire ships.

Except the cannonballs aren't passing through a body of water. Your heel places your ships waterline above water and when you either change direction, the wind changes or depower sails your waterline will become below water in effect causing your leaks to become red. This will be aggravated by a quickly diminishing ability to force the ship to heel above the leaks due to the water intake - and you sink.. Leaking to death is one of the most satisfying things to do to an opponent ingame, mainly because most players protects themselves by depowering sails, effectively placing the ships waterline below water and thereby preventing any penetrating hits below the waterline.. It is however as you have experienced one of the most infuriating ways to sink - but there can only be yourself to blame in the case..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sir William Hargood said:

 I get that. What about previous forum postings regarding de-powering to reduce leaks? Why did the mechanic and solution change?

It's not to reduce leaks, it's too avoid them as prophylaxis. Once you  get leaks, depowering will kill you faster.

@admin since I started playing the game, all "smart" Rear Admirals tell everyone to drop sails to sink slower (if no armour or leaks). I never believed that, but the number of people spreading this false information is terrifying. So many Rear Admirals fail at this game because they listen to other "Admirals" mistakes how to play. Can you clarify water intake at full sails and dropped sails?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Banished Privateer said:

 

@admin since I started playing the game, all "smart" Rear Admirals tell everyone to drop sails to sink slower (if no armour or leaks). I never believed that, but the number of people spreading this false information is terrifying. So many Rear Admirals fail at this game because they listen to other "Admirals" mistakes how to play. Can you clarify water intake at full sails and dropped sails?

Do a video and compare 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really simple man, you exposed the part of the hull that would be under the water, you got shot there. You slowed down, your leaks went under the water, you sank. Realistic or not, this 'feature' exists in the game. Don't show the normally submerged part of the hull.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, z4ys said:

Do a video and compare 😉

Sorry, but I don't need nor want to make videos and compare stuff, that's where my personal knowledge and experience comes in play. I'm just trying to figure out where fake informations come from and trustworthy source like admin to clarify that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Sorry, but I don't need nor want to make videos and compare stuff, that's where my personal knowledge and experience comes in play. I'm just trying to figure out where fake informations come from and trustworthy source like admin to clarify that.

you are absolutely right ,but the players who say this and that,  is always plausible , perhaps when sails go to zero the more men can be used at the pumps 

and you think it has something to do with speed

i think reducing speed is only a good thing (reducing men at sails) if you need the men at the pumps

but i rather would go for guns and put one side off ( :) )

dont believe everything they say...

 

Edited by Thonys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×